ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Analysis of neural networks for routine classification of sixteen ultrasound upper abdominal cross sections.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning classification of reproductive tissue from ultrasound: sex determination in red abalone (Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- MSFE-GallNet-X: a multi-scale feature extraction-based CNN Model for gallbladder disease analysis with enhanced explainability.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- AbVLM-Q: intelligent quality assessment for abdominal ultrasound standard planes via vision-language modeling.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in abdominal and pelvic ultrasound imaging: current applications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAbdominal ultrasound screening requires the capture of multiple standardized plane views as per clinical guidelines. Currently, the extent of adherence to such guidelines is dependent entirely on the skills of the sonographer. The use of neural network classification has the potential to better standardize captured plane views and streamline plane capture reducing the time burden on operators by combatting operator variability.
methodsA dataset consisting of 16 routine upper abdominal ultrasound scans from 64 patients was used to test the classification accuracy of 9 neural networks. These networks were tested on both a small, idealised subset of 800 samples as well as full video sweeps of the region of interest using stratified sampling and transfer learning.
resultsThe highest validation accuracy attained by both GoogLeNet and InceptionV3 is 83.9% using transfer learning and the large sample set of 26,294 images. A top-2 accuracy of 95.1% was achieved using InceptionV3. Alexnet attained the highest accuracy of 79.5% (top-2 of 91.5%) for the smaller sample set of 800 images. The neural networks evaluated during this study were also successfully able to identify problematic individual cross sections such as between kidneys, with right and left kidney being accurately identified 78.6% and 89.7%, respectively.
conclusionDataset size proved a more important factor in determining accuracy than network selection with more complex neural networks providing higher accuracy as dataset size increases and simpler linear neural networks providing better results where the dataset is small.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.